In the past four months, the Biden Administration has ushered in sweeping changes in favor of anti-Life policies that threaten innocent human lives. From funding international abortion groups to undermining Pro-Life state laws, President Biden has demonstrated that he is in the pocket of Big Abortion. Key abortion lobbying groups worked hard to get him elected, and now he will do their bidding.
Among the anti-Life changes so far was the decision to restore funding for experimentation on tissue taken from aborted babies. The Pro-Life Trump Administration policies had temporarily blocked taxpayer funding of this unethical research. Previously, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) spent nearly $100,000 on experiments using aborted babies to try to make “humanized mice.” This disturbing and unethical research was no longer funded by tax dollars for a brief time, but now will be able once again to receive government funding.
As bioethicist David Prentice notes writing for Life News, taxpayer funding of anti-Life research is not the only concern. At the same time that this funding has opened, advances in danger and unethical experimentation are potentially putting innocent human lives at risk. Prentice explains that researchers in Israel claim to have grown mice embryos in an artificial womb for as long as 11 or 12 days.
The mice embryos suspended in a glass jar are killed in the process of experimentation because they do not have natural blood flow from a placenta. Using other means of oxygenating the mice embryos, however, has enabled scientists to grow them for much longer periods of time than previously thought possible.
Disturbingly, some of the researchers already have plans to turn their experimentation to human babies. Researcher Jacob Hanna told MIT Technology Review that he hopes the technology will soon allow scientists to grow human embryos in an artificial womb for up to five weeks.
Hanna had to acknowledge that there are serious ethical concerns with growing a human being for the purpose of experimentation and destruction. Many Pro-Lifers would categorically reject the creation and destruction of innocent human Life for scientific experimentation. Many other people would have reservations about this particular technology.
Interestingly, despite acknowledging the valid concern about using a human embryo solely for experimentation, Hanna justifies his desire to do so by pointing to the in vitro fertilization (IVF) industry. He points out that researchers can use five-day-old human embryos from IVF clinics for study, destroying them as part of their destructive observation.
Many people are unaware of the destructive nature of IVF. Oftentimes, dozens of surplus embryos are created and recklessly destroyed or stored in freezers for years. Each one of those embryos is a unique human person who is separated from us only by time and development. This is clear from the process of “snowflake” adoption in which Pro-Life parents choose to carry an adopted embryo whom they see as a unique and irreplaceable child who deserves the Right to Life. We should not be surprised to see the IVF industry, the commodification of human Life, used as a way to justify utilitarian research that will destroy an untold number of innocent lives.
Researchers eager to move forward with this anti-Life research have suggested using destructive means to ensure that the baby on whom the experiment is being done will be unable to grow to full gestation. Indeed, that is the means already employed in anti-Life research, including gene-editing of human embryos. While there was international outrage when a Chinese scientist claimed to have edited the genes of two babies born in 2018, these types of gene-editing experiments were already taking place around the world, including the United States. The only difference is that those babies on whom experiments were being done were killed early in their development and were never born.
Hanna proposes a similar course for the deadly research he wants to pursue. He said, “So I would advocate growing it until day 40 and then disposing of it. Instead of getting tissue from abortions, let’s take a blastocyst and grow it.” Although Hanna seems to see this as a way of sidestepping the destruction of abortion, clearly, this anti-Life research would not exist if not for abortion which has made possible the harvesting of living human beings for saleable parts.
This life-ending research is not necessary for medical and scientific progress. Ethical alternatives exist and Pro-Lifers must call for their implementation.